Streisand!

I see they were invited in by the person they wanted to intimidate, so that she wouldn't be alone, and there were no voters present. "Better judgement" would have been to not invite them and to not accept the invitation, but after the fact I could say it's preferable to the alternative. The person who decided to take action against this lady should be fired though.

Maybe you should ask them for an ID to make sure they belong there.

> Renee Good tried to run over a cop

First, your disrespectful lower casing of her name shows exactly who you are and what you are trying to do.

Second, no, she did not. We all have seen the videos from every angle. Jonathan Ross, the murderer, was not in danger.

I agree, the lack of accountability of ICE agents abusing their power and murdering US citizens is ridiculous.

> Rene good deserved her concequences 100% though what a piece of shit person.

Serious question - wtf is wrong with you?

You do realize that's a politically motivated account of actions that has never been subjected to any kind of cross-examination.

I want a trial to know if this was a murder or a law enforcement action or self-defense. I should not be expected to decide PERSONALLY, I'm supposed to have a justice system that does that.

But she didn't dox him - per the quote above, the Minnesota Star released his name. She simply restated what was reported.

And that's before we consider the absurdity of making the names of federally-sanctioned killers private. They should all be wearing name tags and ID numbers.

And she didn't actually do what the agents claimed in their letter to her:

“This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties."

She did none of the above. She only said "This is his name. Would be nice if he was indicted." That's not a threat - she's not in a position to indict him or sway a DA towards indictment. His family wasn't mentioned. There was no impeding of his work,

I'm having a hard time reading your sarcasm level here so I'm going to assume its around 85%.

It is widely reported and posted around the internet that Jonathan Ross murdered Rene Good while acting in official duties as an ICE agent.

There is no conspiracy here.

What does “dox” mean in your eyes? Releasing public information?

Ah yes illegal according to those laws handed down by the king.

Saying what you want about the government without fear of reprecussion or intimidation or consequence from the government is literally in the constitution. Very specifically for this situation.

This isn't a "freespeach" argument, this is the actual text of the actual constitution. This is the actual literal reason that line is included in the bill of rights. It is explicit constitutional law that the government cannot punish you for criticizing the government.

There are a ton of exceptions to our right to free speech, but this is not one.

>Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions?

no repercussions from the government, yes, people should be free to write whatever they want

Most countries in the West have higher threshold to arrest someone over social media posts. Some actually much, much higher.

12K is just a ridiculous number and indicates that the UK indeed has a free speech problem. I don't think that in my country there were more like ~ 20 actual arrests over the same problem during the same period.

Even if you agree with prosecuting people for speech, why exactly would you arrest them and drag them to prison/jail? Even here in Europe, this is a sort of offense that usually results in a suspended sentence or a fine, and a physical arrest is absolutely unnecessary, unless there is a good suspicion that that person is going to harm some concrete people at a concrete time.

In a more liberal country, even if prosecution over an utterance takes place, it usually happens without arrests, simply by asking the culprit to come to a police station and explain themselves, later the same in front of a court. There just isn't any need for physical restraining of that person, it is just intimidation.

That, in my opinion, is the question of the era for the USA. We were taught that the rule of law prevailed and there are "checks and balances" but it seems like there is no prescibed way to enforce the rules inside the system.

Whose gonna call the cops on the cops?

These days, I would guess a "tsk-tsk" is said to them.

The States need to grow a pair and start arresting these agents who break the law.

It's illegal to do a lot of things that didn't actually happen.

It's also a violation of election law to administer a voting location in the nude.

The UK case involved him being "lead away" by police and "detained" when he returned and spoke so not really an arrest for holding up a blank piece of paper. Not good by any means, but not quite "for holding up a blank piece of paper". The other UK case was about a threat of arrest if he wrote on the paper - that is under the law that bans protests in Parliament Square. Again, not good, but not for holding up a blank piece of paper.

The facts in your link contradict your post